Senna, R. v

Historical guidance against sending a jury out late in the afternoon, particularly on a Friday, was founded on the former requirement that deliberating jurors remain segregated. That constraint no longer governs following the statutory change permitting jurors to separate during deliberations under the Juries Act 1974.

The safety of a conviction depends on whether the circumstances created actual pressure on the jury. A clear direction that no verdict is expected before an adjournment, coupled with arrangements to revisit exhibits if requested, supports the conclusion that a prompt verdict was freely reached.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Harrow of five counts of fraud contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. The prosecution alleged that, while cashing up at a retail store, he removed cash from bags before placing them in the safe. He denied dishonesty and maintained that the missing money resulted from coincidence or errors by others.

By leave of the single judge, he appealed against conviction. He contended that the Recorder should not have sent the jury out at 3.18 pm on the Friday before a Bank Holiday weekend, particularly when a juror had asked about viewing CCTV footage. The issue was whether the circumstances rendered the verdicts unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were not unsafe.

2. The former guidance in R v Birch (The Times, 27th March 1992), against sending a jury out after 3 pm in a serious case with several verdicts unless exceptional circumstances existed, reflected the former need to keep deliberating jurors segregated. The statutory amendment effected by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made separation lawful during deliberations. The practical constraints on which that guidance rested therefore no longer obtained.

3. The Recorder twice made clear that the jury were not expected to reach verdicts that afternoon and would resume deliberations on Tuesday if necessary. She did not place pressure on them, while properly leaving them free to return verdicts if they reached them.

4. The request concerning CCTV did not show that the jury needed to view it again before deciding the case. The jury had been told that suitable arrangements would be made if they identified the footage they wished to see. Having heard a week of evidence, speeches and a clear summing-up, they were entitled to decide that no further viewing was required. Nothing in the circumstances established pressure or otherwise undermined the safety of the verdicts.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2018] EWCA Crim 789, dismissed the appeal against conviction.

• Crown Court at Harrow: On 25 August 2017, the appellant was convicted by a jury of five fraud counts. He received suspended sentences, unpaid work, compensation and a victim surcharge.